Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.L. Anand, J.
Savitri and Bhagwanti - Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 5117 of 1981.
Decided On : 17 December, 1996
HARYANA CEILING ON LAND HOLDINGS ACT, 1972 - SECTION 12(4) - SURPLUS LAND - TRANSFER OF LAND AFTER APPOINTED DATE - IGNORING OF TRANSFER - FORGED DEATH CERTIFICATE - CONCEALMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS - DISMISSAL OF WRIT PETITION. The petitioners, Smt. Savitri and Smt. Bhagwanti, filed a writ petition challenging the orders declaring their land as surplus and allotting it to the private respondents. The petitioners claimed that they inherited the land from their father, Shri Dayal, who died on 23.6.1956, after the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and that they were entitled to succeed to the estate. The official respondents contended that Shri Dayal died on 3.6.1956, before the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, and that his widow, Smt. Parmeshwari Devi (respondent No. 5), was entitled to succeed to the entire estate. They also alleged that the petitioners had concealed material facts, including the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, and that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay. The Court, after examining the evidence and the submissions of the parties, found that the petitioners had indeed forged the death certificate of Shri Dayal to show that he died after the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act. The Court also found that the petitioners had concealed the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, which had merged with the impugned orders. The Court held that the petitioners had not availed the alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned orders and that they had made false representations to the Court. The Court dismissed the writ petition with costs.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Smt. Savitri and Smt. Bhagwanti, filed a writ petition challenging the orders declaring their land as surplus and allotting it to the private respondents. The petitioners claimed that they inherited the land from their father, Shri Dayal, who died on 23.6.1956, after the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and that they were entitled to succeed to the estate. The official respondents contended that Shri Dayal died on 3.6.1956, before the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, and that his widow, Smt. Parmeshwari Devi (respondent No. 5), was entitled to succeed to the entire estate. They also alleged that the petitioners had concealed material facts, including the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, and that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay.
Finding of the Court:
The Court, after examining the evidence and the submissions of the parties, found that the petitioners had indeed forged the death certificate of Shri Dayal to show that he died after the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act. The Court also found that the petitioners had concealed the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, which had merged with the impugned orders. The Court held that the petitioners had not availed the alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned orders and that they had made false representations to the Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners had forged the death certificate of Shri Dayal to show that he died after the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act? 2. Whether the petitioners had concealed the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner? 3. Whether the petitioners had availed the alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned orders? 4. Whether the petitioners had made false representations to the Court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioners had indeed forged the death certificate of Shri Dayal to show that he died after the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act. The Court relied on the evidence of the Deputy C.M.O., Sirsa, who testified that the original death certificate showed that Shri Dayal died on 3.6.1956, and that the petitioners had tampered with the certificate to show that he died on 23.6.1956. 2. The Court held that the petitioners had concealed the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, which had merged with the impugned orders. The Court noted that the petitioners had not disclosed these orders in their writ petition, and that they had only come to light during the pendency of the L.P.A. filed by the private respondents. 3. The Court held that the petitioners had not availed the alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned orders. The Court noted that the petitioners could have appealed to the Collector against the impugned orders, but that they had failed to do so. 4. The Court held that the petitioners had made false representations to the Court. The Court noted that the petitioners had claimed in their writ petition that they were in possession of the land in dispute, and that the allotment to the private respondents was a mere paper transaction. However, the Court found that this was false, and that the private respondents had been in possession of the land since 4.7.1981.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition with costs.
R.L. Anand, J. - Smt. Savitri and Smt. Bhagwanti have filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of writ of certiorari for the quashment of the orders (Annexures P1 and P2) passed by respondents No. 2 and 3, declaring the area belonging to the petitioners as surplus qua respondent No. 5, under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short the 1972 Act), and allotting the same to respondents No. 6 to 10, namely, Kaku, Piara, Munshi, Khushal and Nihal.
2. The case set up by the petitioners is that father of the petitioners and husband of respondent No. 5, i.e., Dayal, owned share in Khewat No. 8, Khatauni Nos. 12 to 21, measuring 1494 Kanals 2 Marlas situated in village Banni, Tehsil and District Sirsa. According to the petitioners, Shri Dayal died on 23.6.1956, leaving behind the petitioners and respondent No. 5 as his heirs in equal shares. The surplus land in the hands of Shri Dayal under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short 1953 Act) had neither been declared nor utilised before he died and he was in possession of the entire holding. By virtue of the exception provided under Section 10-A(b) of the 1953 Act in favour of the heirs acquiring by inheritance, each of the three heirs, i.e., the petitioners and respondent No. 5, succeeded to 249 Kanals each, and they became small landowners within the meaning of the 1953 Act and no part of the land in their hands became surplus. On the death of Shri Dayal, which took place soon after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the revenue staff while verifying the annual record (Charsala Jamabandi) on 20.10.1956 mutated the entire land left by Shri Dayal in the name of respondent No. 5 alone, following the Customary law of Succession, in ignorance of or contrary to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. The mutation was attested and sanctioned in favour of Smt. Parmeshwari Devi (respondent No. 5) without notice to the petitioners. In spite of the wrong and illegal mutation, the petitioners and their mother Smt. Parmeshwari Devi remained in possession as owners in equal shares. Respondent No. 5 did not inherit the entire share of her husband and, therefore, she was not a big landowner. She did not furnish any declaration to the Collector as required under Section 19-B of the 1953 Act. The grouse of the petitioners is that the mistake of wrong entry was discovered by them in the year 1972 and in order to get the wrong mutation entry undone, the petitioner Smt. Bhagwanti filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she is the owner of the property to the extent of one-third share left by her father and her suit was decreed on 14.4.1972 and mutation No. 3118 was attested and on the basis of that decree mutation No. 3276 was sanctioned on 14.3.1976. Respondent No. 5 misled by the entries in the revenue record, filed declaration in Form I under Section 9 of the 1972 Act, indicating the change of ownership entries vide mutations No. 3118 and 3276, as transfers after 24.1.1971. Respondent No. 3, the Prescribed Authority under the Ceiling Law, without issuing proper notice to respondent No. 4 and without issuing any notice for hearing to the petitioners, passed orders dated 12.10.1978 (Annexure P1) and ignored mutations No. 3118 and 3276 as not bona fide transfers and declared 740 Kanals 4 Marlas C Category land as surplus with Smt. Parmeshwari (respondent No. 5). Respondent No. 5 then filed an appeal before the Collector and the same was dismissed as barred by time. The learned Collector did not take notice of the fact that the petitioners are the owners to the extent of one-third share each in the estate of Shri Dayal. The order passed by the Collector is Annexure P2. Now the challenge has been given to the orders (Annexures P1 and P2) on the ground that the petitioners are the legal heirs of Shri Dayal, who allegedly died on 23.6.1956 after the passing of the Hindu Succ
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
